• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Criticism of McKinsey Survey on Employer Health Coverage Falls Short

    The recent McKinsey survey showing that 30 percent of employers would drop coverage shouldn’t be controversial. Economists have consistently shown how an employer mandate will negatively affect employment and wages. In fact, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concede such affects.

    Answering critics’ calls, McKinsey released the details of its survey three weeks ago, showing that their survey methodology was sound. The survey included a large sample size, representative industries, respondents directly involved in the decision-making process regarding health benefits, and questions/information presented in a neutral manner. Nonetheless, critics—including the White House and Senate Democrats—have continued to vehemently criticize the report, calling it an “outlier.”

    The main argument being put forth is that the McKinsey report is simply a survey that is not predicative of the future. While it is true that the report was geared primarily toward assessing employers’ attitudes toward Obamacare, critics have failed to address the economic arguments that underlie the implications. Economists Doug Holtz-Eakin and James Capretta have shown that in terms of cost, it would be a “win-win” for employers to shift employees with incomes up to four times the federal poverty line (or $94,000 for a family of four in 2014) into the exchanges, as employees would receive premium subsidies much more generous in scope than that of the employer tax exclusion for health benefits. Employers win as well, as they could cut costs even after having paid a penalty.

    Much of the current projections on which Obamacare defenders rely (including CBO, the Rand Corporation, and the Urban Institute) have overlooked employers’ desire to maximize these cost-savings. This also implies that the costs of Obamacare are likely significantly underestimated.

    These projections rely on observations from studies that evaluate health insurance outside the Obamacare policy framework. As Heritage analyst Paul Winfree points out, these studies fall short by “not accounting for the underlying behavior of workers/firms to large changes in the policy environment.”

    Critics have also pointed to the Massachusetts health reform to show that employers are not likely to drop coverage en masse. However, as Avik Roy has noted, since the Massachusetts law is isolated to one state, it ignores the fact that many firms operate in more than one state. Therefore, it is difficult for firms to drop coverage in one state and not another because of competition between firms and the interconnected nature of health care benefits that employers offer their employees.

    Ultimately, much of the criticism of the McKinsey report up to this point has be unfair or has failed to address the concerns raised by the report altogether. The findings of the McKinsey survey are important and contribute a great deal to the debate about what we should expect from Obamacare.

    Daniel Graulich is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Criticism of McKinsey Survey on Employer Health Coverage Falls Short

    1. Jake says:

      It's interesting how the White House only questions the methodology of reports that are critical than those that are supportive.

    2. Steve Cruz says:

      "The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision making related to employee health benefits."

      So it is just an opinion of people. of which I think 70% were not familiar with how much their company was currently spending on health care. And they are only asked about what they would do after they are primed with some statements that are the equivelant of a push poll. So you take people who aren't actually financial experts and you prime them with certain data and they make a guess about something?

      • Derek T. says:

        If these "people" are the ones who will be making the decisions about their companies' health care plans, well…then…yea, you want their feelings – experts or not.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.